Preprint Review Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

CO2 Utilization in the Ironmaking and Steelmaking Process

Version 1 : Received: 11 December 2018 / Approved: 12 December 2018 / Online: 12 December 2018 (15:32:35 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Dong, K.; Wang, X. CO2 Utilization in the Ironmaking and Steelmaking Process. Metals 2019, 9, 273. Dong, K.; Wang, X. CO2 Utilization in the Ironmaking and Steelmaking Process. Metals 2019, 9, 273.

Journal reference: Metals 2019, 9, 273
DOI: 10.3390/met9030273

Abstract

A overview on application of CO2 in the ironmaking and steelmaking process is presented. Study on resource utilization of CO2 is significant for the reduction of CO2 emissions and the coping with global warming. The paper introduces the research progress of CO2 utilization in the sintering, Blast Furnace, Converter, secondary refining, Continuous Casting and smelting process of stainless steel in recent years in China. According to the foreign and domestic research and application status, the paper analyzes the feasibility and metallurgical effects of the CO2 utilization in the ferrous metallurgy process. The paper mainly introduces such new techniques as 1) flue gas circulating sintering, 2) blowing CO2 through Blast Furnace tuyere and CO2 as a pulverized coal carrier gas, 3) top and bottom blowing CO2 in the converter, 4) Ladle Furnace and Electric Arc Furnace bottom blowing CO2, 5) CO2 as Continuous Casting shielding gas, 6) CO2 for stainless steel smelting, and 7) CO2 circulation combustion. CO2 has a very wide application prospect in ferrous metallurgy process and the quantity of CO2 utilization is expected to be 100kg per ton of steel. It will effectively facilitate the progress of metallurgical technology and strongly promote the energy conservation of metallurgical industry.

Subject Areas

Carbon dioxide; Injection; Blast Furnace; Converter; Combustion

Comments (6)

Importance: How significant is the paper to the field?
Outstanding/highlight paper
0%
Significant contribution
0%
Incremental contribution
0%
No contribution
100%
Soundness of evidence/arguments presented:
Conclusions well supported
0%
Most conclusions supported (minor revision needed)
0%
Incomplete evidence (major revision needed)
0%
Hypothesis, unsupported conclusions, or proof-of-principle
100%
Comment 1
Received: 12 December 2018
Commenter: Mehrdad Yousefi (Click to see Publons profile: )
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: I reviewed this preprint initially and I recommend to reject cause it doesn't add anything new to the knowledge of extractive metallurgy of Iron and Steel. It pretty much looks like a copy and paste from textbooks without even proper attention to organize them properly for better presentation. For example: cf. Fig.5 which shows a burner and the citation for this figure is [37] but authors only listed the references at the end of their manuscript until [33]. So, it's quite embarrassing to say that this low quality text, which is assembled based on existing textbook even not properly, is accepted to be promoted in "preprints.org" despite my initial suggestion for rejection.
+ Respond to this comment
Response 1 to Comment 1
Received: 13 December 2018
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Thanks for you peer review firstly.
The CO2 Utilization is a new subject for ironmaking and steelmaking, which has begun to be studied in the past ten years. The new technological advancements are summarized in this review article, which are not well known. For related field researchers in metallurgical factories and institutions, this article contains many publishable contents, which can not be readed in textbooks. The reference ID [37] is a residual mistake in modify process, and will be corrected soon.
Response 2 to Comment 1
Received: 13 December 2018
Commenter: Mehrdad Yousefi (Click to see Publons profile: )
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: I'm still not convinced cause at the best I would say your article is just a poor assembly of existing materials from other articles, which does not add anything new to the field of CO2 utilization in Iron making and Steel making industries. For example: look at this article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918303726#f0015

It's really important to put original data and contribution in articles which in your case for example could be: what is your novel plan to make CO2 utilization and green Iron making and Steel making procedures more economically efficient? It's not acceptable to assemble existing literature from internet or existing article in a poor way and make it online even as a preprint. I see in your article you didn't give any original data that is obtained by authors. If your intention is to write a review paper, that's an another story and it's not a correct way to do that. Cf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715443/
Response 3 to Comment 1
Received: 13 December 2018
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: This review article is mainly a summary of the existing research by my research group and other researchers, and the main purpose is to sort out the application fields of co2, so the original data are all ignored. Maybe my writing ideas are not appropriate, thanks for you example article and suggestions.
Comment 2
Received: 12 December 2018
Commenter: Mehrdad Yousefi (Click to see Publons profile: )
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: I reviewed this preprint initially and I recommended to reject cause it doesn't add anything new to the knowledge of extractive metallurgy of Iron and Steel. It pretty much looks like a copy and paste from textbooks without even proper attention to organize them properly for better presentation. For example: cf. Fig.5 which shows a burner and the citation for this figure is [37] but authors only listed the references at the end of their manuscript until [33]. So, it's quite embarrassing to say that this low quality text, which is assembled based on existing textbooks even not properly, is accepted to be promoted in "preprints.org" despite my initial suggestion for rejection.
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 3
Received: 18 December 2018
Commenter: Martyn Rittman (Click to see Publons profile: )
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Director of Preprints.org
Comment: This paper has been checked using Ithenticate and very low levels of copied text were found, including nothing that would suggest that significant portions have been copied from other sources, such as textbooks. The work reports a review of a recently developed area and fits with the criteria for posting on Preprints.org.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 6
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.